(from "Whaling Issues and Japan's Whale Research", ICR, 1993)
Dr. Fukuzo Nagasaki
Director-General, Institute of Cetacean Research
Few animals have ever been so hotly debated as whales. One reason is undoubtedly the awe which the sheer size of some species inspires. Another is the history of their over-exploitation by advanced countries. Recently, however, the whaling controversy has tended to veer away from specific and concrete aspects relating to whaling to focus instead on more general and conceptual aspects which can be applied to issues not necessarily related to whaling.
Although it is generally understood that whales can never go extinct under the present international management system, there is no sign that arguments against whaling are about to fade away. Even since the moratorium on commercial whaling entered effect in 1986, strong opposition has continued to be voiced to scientific research by Japan, Norway and Iceland involving the lethal sampling of whales. Thus opposition to whaling has gone far beyond the issue of conservation of resources and transformed itself into a battle to halt the killing of whales as such. The controversy has thus raised a general question concerning the relations between man and nature and between man and natural resources.
This has given rise to questions of an extremely abstract nature, such as whether it is right for man to kill whales for food, or whether the catching of whales could upset the balance of the ecosystem. If we substitute "fish" (or any other animal) for whales, and "fisheries" (or any animal hunt) for whaling, we find that the same arguments could be applied to all types of fishery. And, depending on the course of the debate, the controversy could lead us to make very irresponsible conclusions. A cautious approach is thus needed to the whaling controversy, as it cannot be dealt with as an isolated issue.
The taking of North Atlantic hair seals has been opposed on similar grounds, and so has the taking of North Pacific fur seals. The management of fur seal stocks is considered to be one of the most successful international resource management systems but, because of strong campaigns against the clubbing of seals, no commercial utilisation is now taking place except for limited catches in the former USSR. The treaty signed by Japan, the US, Canada and the USSR, which presuppose some utilisation will take place, has already lost its effectiveness so that now there is no international treaty governing the management of seal resources. The absence of control is by no means conductive to good international resource management.
I. Biological Ecosystem and Food Chain
The term "food chain" is frequently used by biologists to express the flow of energy among living organisms, i.e. the causal relations between predators and prey. It is sometimes referred to as the "food web" because, when represented as a model, the chain actually appears as a cubic spider web. The outer part is occupied by plants (including phytoplankton), which, through photosynthesis, are the primary producers of organic materials from inorganic salts. Living organisms on higher trophic levels are situated toward the inner part of the web. Such web-like structures are found both on land and in the sea, lakes and small ponds. Man, who utilises various groups of living organisms, holds the central position in many web structures.
Man is omnivorous by nature and also has a highly varied diet. This, and the sheer size of the human population, make man the greatest predator, both qualitatively and quantitatively, in nature. If we are to survive, therefore, we have no choice but to be the enemy of a large number of other life forms. In short, we are totally dependent on the food chain of living organisms. This means we do not dominate nature but are incorporated into it. We have survived and thrived by benefiting from our causal relations with nature, and these relations will remain unchanged in the future.
Needless to say, the human diet consists almost entirely of animal and vegetable matter, the only exceptions being water and minerals such as salt. However, in contrast with the rest of the animal kingdom, the division of labour and professionalism which have developed as our society has advanced now make it unnecessary for the majority of us to search for our own food in the seas and mountains. The task of collecting food is carried out by professionals. As a result, innocent-looking young ladies can dine in comfortable restaurants on blood-oozing rare beef that has been so skillfully processed and tastefully served they cannot imagine the predator-prey relationship that went into its making. There is no need for ordinary consumers to know in detail the mass slaughter which takes place daily in every society, and it is more comfortable for them not to know it. Here "slaughter" refers not only to cattle, pigs and poultry, but also includes the millions of fish landed at ports every day.
All animals and plants have the right to live. But in order for animals to enjoy that right, they are obliged to eat other animals or plants. Predation, therefore, is a fact of life. A few people have decided to become vegetarians, but for most of us vegetable alone do not satisfy our dietary needs. Next, there are a large number of people who find the hunting of wild animals unacceptable, but find acceptable the slaughtering of livestock such as cattle and poultry. It is surely unreasonable to deny a farm animal the right to live while granting that right to another animal just because it lives in the wild. Life is not made but is born. Man does not give life, and we should therefore refrain from making egocentric arguments about the killing of animals.
The need to kill in order to live must be recognised, but at the same time we should strive to ensure that life is not taken unnecessarily. Animals do not kill more than is necessary to satisfy their hunger and that of their offspring. This is because they are only required to be self-sufficient; they do not have a division of labour as man does that requires one animal to find food for many others. Thus when an animal's appetite has been sated, it will ignore potential prey even when that prey presents an easy target. In the case of man, however, it is difficult to determine just how much food is needed, and thus from what point the killing becomes unnecessary. The logic which one might apply to determine how much killing is necessary also becomes blurred by economic considerations.
Plants also play a basic role in the ecosystem. Grass in the fields and trees in the forests are living things, and in as far as they are alive, they should have the same right to live as animals do. But in the same way that fish are caught by fishermen, and cattle, pigs and poultry are slaughtered by the livestock industry, so trees and grass are cut down and collected by foresters and farmers. In her book "Trip of Water" (Mizu no Tabi), Kazuko Tomiyama says: "Cutting down and planting trees means man's active participation in the life cycle of nature in which trees grow and return to the soil and then foster another life to come." She continues: "Quite a number of people who adore Western culture tend to think that protecting nature is not touching it. But it deprives village people who actually protect forests of their confidence and willingness to do so, thus creating an obstacle in promoting forestation of the national land."
The slaughtering of animals should be allowed to the extent necessary to maintain human life. Undoubtedly it is best if we can use methods of slaughter which inflict the minimum pain possible. Some people believe that certain killing methods are unacceptably cruel. The clubbing method used by Canadian and Norwegian sealers was considered the easiest and most effective way to kill without damaging the pelt, but it was presented to the general public by animal rights groups as being cruel. The Canadian government received letters from all over the world calling for the immediate end to this "bloody slaughter", to which the government responded that this was not whimsical killing, and that many people depended for their livelihood on seal fur. Fur seals on breeding islands in the North Pacific have also been clubbed to death. In the case of Antarctic minke whaling, Japan recently introduced explosive harpoons similar to those used for larger species, to make the killing more humane.
But although the above-mentioned methods of slaughter are not new, it is only in the last few years that the issue has been raised of whether they are cruel. One reason why criticism of such killing methods is escalating has to do with the ubiquitousness today of colour imagery - on television, in magazines, and even in newspapers. In the days of black and white television, the spectacle of a whaling boat hunting down its quarry against a backdrop of icebergs filled many people with a scene of awe. Now the same scenes are being broadcast in colour, and the response is somewhat different. For many people, the feeling of awe and splendour has been replaced by a queasy feeling that they are witnessing something cruel.
In the present age, with full-colour mass communication the norm, the reporting of professional slaughter should be handled with particular caution. Of course, methods employed to slaughter animals should be subjected to scrutiny from time to time. But even if methods are discovered which guarantee animals a more pain-free death, we must consider the costs of implementing change, and the effect these costs will have on product prices. There are thus certain practical limitations when it comes to developing humane methods of slaughter. These issues should be left to the deliberation of experts, and the killing of whales is no exception.
"Hinoki cypress of the Kiso region should be cut with utmost care," says a local woodcutter. As long as animals are required to kill their prey, be it animal or vegetable, in order to live, there should be prey-predator ethics. No indiscriminate or disordered slaughter should be allowed. First of all, due consideration should be given to preserving and maintaining prey resources. For coexistence, it is necessary to maintain not only the stocks of predators but also of the prey species. If the prey species are driven to extinction, then the predators will soon follow. From the viewpoint of man, the greatest predator, the existence of management measures for all prey species is essential.
Japanese whalers take pride in their thorough utilisation of whales. When Western nations were whaling, they used whales only for the oil yielded by their blubber and dumped the meat in the sea. In the case of Japan, however, there has been a custom of eating whale meat for centuries, and today, when whale oil no longer has any value, the blubber is eaten too. To kill animals only to use them partially is a deviation from the appropriate relationship between prey and predator. Thus, killing elephants only for their ivory should be avoided. If man needs ivory so much, some means should be found of removing the ivory without killing the elephant. "As these woods lived for several hundred years, we are to blame if we don't use them thoroughly," says the Kiso woodcutter.
These words of the woodcutter come from "Walking Trip At Whim" by Hiroshi Takada. Takada writes: "The woodcutter implanted a branch on top of the stump of the tree which he had just cut. He thanked the guardian god of the mountain and prayed for the peace of the souls of creatures which became sacrifice for human beings."
Japanese fishermen have built shrines in various parts of the country at which to pray for the souls of their prey, or to express gratitude for bountiful catches of whales, skipjack or tuna. Among the most numerous - at more than 50 - are monuments to whales, perhaps the oldest of which was built in 1671 in Kumano, Mie Prefecture. Historically, the Japanese people have viewed fish and whales not as "things" but as "creatures". The monuments express our ancestor's feelings about harvesting from nature. In a recent issue of the Cetacean Research Institute Bulletin (No. 376), Keiji Nasu writes: "In 1976, Priest Sanyo of Shinrensha, the Kougan Temple, constructed a Kannondo for consolation of soul of whales. The date of catch was set as anniversary of death. Buddhist name was given to each whale and prayers were said for each of them." According to Nasu, the date and place of catch, species of whales, size and the sales price are recorded for each of about 1,000 whales caught since the Bunka Period (1800 - 1814).
The issue of hunting and fishing for the purpose of recreation is an integral part of the larger issue of killing animals. In contrast with professional slaughtering and hunting for food, there seems to be little or no justification for killing for pleasure. In actuality, however, little criticism has been directed at sporting hunters and fishermen. I have already stated that the slaughtering of animals should be permitted to the level necessary to maintain life, but this is not necessarily limited to the acquisition of food. It could include non-food uses, such as fur and ivory. If the harvesting of these commodities is a means of supporting one's life, they should not be labelled unnecessary killing. Even the sport of hunting is an industry, and there are many people who earn their livelihoods this way.
It is extremely difficult to determine to what extent these activities should or should not be allowed because they are so closely woven into the fabric of the economic vitality of society. In searching for an answer, one must rely on socially accepted standards, but as these standards are not fixed, and vary greatly from one society to the next, discussions must take account of various viewpoints. But one of the social criteria which has top priority is certainly food acquisition for living as practiced traditionally in given communities.
II. Fish-Based Diet and Meat-Based Diet
There is a view that eating whales is unethical. This is the starting point of the anti-whaling campaign. Whatever the reason, these people are opposed to the killing and eating of whales. Though the eating by Japanese of whale meat might have been acceptable to them during the time of food shortages following World War II, Japan is now a prosperous nation and all justification for eating whale meat, we are told, has gone.
However, it is a rarity indeed for the people of one nation to allow other nations to interfere with their dietary habits. There are several instances of nations shunning potential foods because of religious beliefs, but believers in such faiths rarely attempt to force their precepts on followers of other religions. Americans have the right to prohibit the eating of whale meat through their domestic laws, and the Japanese have no reason to oppose it. In a similar vein, Americans should not grumble about Japanese habits of eating whale meat or sea urchins or sea cucumbers or any other food.
Japan's economy has traditionally been based on agriculture, and, like peoples in Southeast Asian countries, the Japanese people eat rice as their staple food. By contrast, like in the West has been based on cattle-breeding and meat eating. Indeed, the consumption of meat in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is so high that we can call meat a staple food in these countries. The Japanese, on the other hand, have relied for animal protein mainly on fishery products - fish and shellfish, both from the sea and fresh water. In this sense, the Japanese can rightly be called a people dependent on marine resources. Put simply, the Japanese diet is based on rice and fish while the American diet is based on meat.
As cattle-breeding people eat the animals they raise, the range of food they consume is naturally limited. They neither can pursue, nor need to pursue, diversity in their diet. Cattle breeders always live with the cattle which are the source of their food. Even today, the food materials for Westerners, the stockraising people, are naturally limited as compared with those of the Japanese who live on farming and marine food. Meat includes beef, pork, mutton, goat and chicken, and its variety is not so rich even when internal organs, processed food and eggs are counted. A glimpse at both meat and fish shops will show a striking difference in variety between these two food groups. Those who have traveled in the US may have noticed that the food consumed daily is almost the same throughout the country, with little local or seasonal variation. In America there is nothing like the seasonal characteristics and taste of food proper to its season which is so cherished in Japan. For the Japanese, the American diet seems monotonous and boring.
The Japanese have obtained calories from rice and animal protein from fish. (Strictly speaking, rice and fish were not easily available to the masses until the Meiji Era [ 1868 - 1912 ], but as historians have pointed out, the Japanese always had a wish to eat rice and fish to their heart's content.) The use of marine resources by the Japanese is without parallel in the world, both in terms of quantity and diversity. The Japanese eat virtually every type of marine living resource, including whales, dolphins, fish, squid, octopus, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, ascidians and seaweeds. To harvest marine resources extensively from the highest to the lowest echelon in the food chain is the most rational way of utilising resources. If catches concentrate only on particular species, both the fishing seasons and fishing grounds become limited, and the harvest is inevitably reduced. The Japanese practice of eating whales and dolphins from olden times, which reflected the first pattern of utilisation, is a very natural way of using marine living resources. The Japanese have historically viewed whales as just another species of fish. One of the reasons why the Japanese developed a liking for whale meat was that it resembled cattle meat in taste but was still considered a fish.
Now let us make a more quantitative comparison between the habits of eating meat and eating fish. The average per-capita consumption of meat and fish/shellfish in major nations can be classified by plotting through figures (see Figure ). By linking the points indicating 70 kg of consumption of meat and fish, the nations which are grouped inside the triangle (i.e. less than 70 kg of meat and fish combined) are distinguished from those which lie outside the triangle. All the advanced industrial nations lie outside the triangle, but even among them meat consumption varies greatly, with per capita consumption in Australia, the US, New Zealand and Canada exceeding 100 kg. In these countries meat, and in particular beef, is a staple food and as a matter of course their consumption of fish is small. Consumption of meat in European nations, including France, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy, is within the range of 70 - 100 kg, indicating that they belong to the meat-eating bloc. Dependence on fish becomes higher in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the USSR and Spain. In clear contrast, Japan and Iceland are typical fish-eating countries, with their reliance on fish far larger than on meat.
Among countries found inside the 70-70 kg line, South and North Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand show a strong propensity for eating fish, while the staple foodstuff of all these countries is rice. Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Cote d'lvoire - all on the west coast of Africa - also have a strong propensity for fish. Countries in other parts of Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are oriented toward eating meat but the amounts consumed are still small. In China, pork is commonly consumed.
Now we will consider the relations of some of these countries to whaling. The term "whaling nation" is no longer appropriate because commercial whaling is now prohibited by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), but the nations which conducted whaling until recently are Japan, Iceland, South Korea, the USSR, Spain, Norway and Denmark - all of them fishing nations and relatively dependent on marine living resources. Among them, whale meat was consumed in Japan, Norway, Greenland and Iceland on a daily basis, while the others primarily exported to Japan. In other words, the former whaling nations were not necessarily nations which consumed whale meat. But in a country like Japan, where whale meat has been traditionally consumed, issues relating to dietary culture are involved which have more than mere economic implications - issues in common with the relations between whales and dietary customs of Inuit who depend on bowhead whales and Greenlanders who depend on minke whales.
Nations which consume large amounts of cattle meat are generally the strongholds of anti-whaling campaigns. (Most of them were also major whaling nations in the past). They are mostly nations of Anglo-Saxons, like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Europe, countries in which anti-whaling sentiment is strong, such as the UK, France, the Netherlands and Germany, are predominantly meat-eating countries. Therefore, it is possible to substitute the distinction between pro-whaling and anti-whaling positions with that between fish-eating and meat-eating blocs.
There is a striking difference between these two types of dietary habit. A diet based on cattle meat tends to contain more calories than a fish-based diet because cattle consume lower-level feedstuffs. In order to produce 1 kg of cattle, an average of 6 - 8 kg of feed is needed. More than 10 kg of feed is needed to produce 1 kg of beef, 4 - 5 kg for 1 kg of pork, and about 2 kg per kilogram of poultry. When these figures are converted into calories, they mean reductions of 19.4 % for cow's milk, 19.4 % for poultry, 18.5 % for pork, 6.8 % for beef and 7.6 % for mutton. Therefore, the basic calories consumed by Westerners for whom meat is a staple foodstuff are much higher than those consumed by Asians who live mainly on grains. People in developing countries consume an average of 200 kg of grain a year while the corresponding figure for industrial nations exceeds 500 kg. Per capita consumption in the US is 1 tonne, equivalent to the consumption of five Indians or two Japanese.
If we assume the average consumption of grain per capita per day to be 500 gm, about 800 million tonnes of grain would suffice to support a total world population of 4.7 billion. Grain output in recent years is said to stand at about 1.6 billion to 1.7 billion tonnes, which means that the grain we produce alone is sufficient to support the peoples of the world. However, if everybody starts adopting the meat-eating habit to the extent that it prevails in Western nations, agricultural production will not be sufficient to meet demand. In contrast to the raising of cattle, fishing (with the exception of aquaculture) is harvesting from nature. The most important issue is how to use the system of marine living resources efficiently. Using plankton-fed fish will enlarge the catch potential, while catching only high-grade fish-eating fish will limit the harvest. To harvest extensively from all levels of the ecosystem is the most desirable way to utilise such living resources, and in this sense the Japanese fishing industry can be considered efficient.
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, I must stress here that I have no objection whatsoever to people in Western countries eating meat, and in particular when they live in areas which are not conductive to agriculture. In Japan as well, consumption of meat has grown rapidly in the post-war period. But in order to cope with the problems of increasing population and per-capita consumption against a background of finite productivity, it will be necessary to encourage dietary habits closely linked to local conditions proper to each people.
Some people argue that for Japan to give up what amounts to a comparatively small amount of whale meat would have no serious impact on what is now one of the world's economic powerhouses. Food is so abundant in Japan that the people have no need for any more. But it is to be noted that the relation of the Japanese to whales is not one in which we eat them because the meat is placed before us and do not eat them when they are not available.
In the prewar years, the Japanese people ate whale meat in larger quantities than is generally believed. In the period 1930 - 1940, the per-capita annual supply of meat (including cattle, poultry and whales) was only 2 to 2.5 kg, of which 15 % was whale meat. Whale meat came to play an important role in the Japanese diet during the years of food shortages immediately after World War II. In the prewar days, whale meat consumption was mostly limited to particular areas, but after the war whale meat consumption spread throughout the nation, especially into the diet of city dwellers. Until 1960, whale meat accounted for over 30 % of total meat consumption in Japan, with a large part being consumed by young generations in the form of school lunches.
The fact that whale meat was an important source of animal protein, accounting for more than 30 % of total meat consumption, is not a mere passing phenomenon for the Japanese. In some ways, Japanese reliance on whale meat was greater, at least in some limited areas, than that of Alaskan Inuit and Greenlanders. Needless to say, potential demand for whale meat is still great even today. Since 1965, consumption saw a gradual decline due to the decrease in production, and the percentage of whale meat in total meat consumption shrank to a mere fraction. But the Japanese people will resist strongly if whale meat is dropped completely from the list of Japanese foods.
III. International Management of Cetaceans
There is no denying that, overall, the history of whaling has been characterised by over-exploitation. From the 10th century when the Basques began hunting right whales in the Bay of Biscay, one whaling ground after another had its stocks depleted. However, the label "over-exploitation" by no means belongs exclusively to whaling. In the history of many of other fisheries too, over-exploitation has been a cause of major concern. Any easily exploited species with high commercial value is prone to our tendency to over-exploit. From the 19th century to the early 20th century, sea otters and seals in the North Pacific were over-exploited, and at one time driven to the brink of extinction. Fortunately, as a result of international agreements, these stocks gradually recovered and are now healthy once more.
In the case of fish, quite a large number of species have, at one time or other, shown conspicuous declines in their stocks as a result of over-fishing. It is easy to cite examples in Japanese waters, but this phenomenon has been observed both in the West and in the East. Generally speaking, one of the characteristics of fisheries, including whaling, is that stocks are targeted which belong to no one and which can be utilised freely. The principle of freedom of fishing on the open seas, whereby everyone profits and no one loses, presupposes inexhaustible resources. But this principle is quite clearly flawed because the resources are limited. Nowadays people no longer think of the sea as a bottomless pool of resources. We have come to understand that the resources are limited and that tomorrow's harvest will decline if we take too much today. However, from a legal point of view, the status of marine resources still reflects the supposition that they are inexhaustible, as embodied in the concept that they are the "property of all people" or, alternatively, the "property of no one". This gives rise to the recurring tragedy of "common property".
It is not true that whales have been utilised in a completely uncontrolled fashion. The first international whaling agreement came into force in the last 1930s, and soon after World War II, a commission based on a new international convention for the regulation of whaling was organised, in which regulatory measures for whales were discussed annually. But the commission failed to establish a balance between the conservation of whales and long-term utilisation. Two causes can be considered responsible for this failure. First, the original signatories to the whaling convention were the major whaling nations of the day: Australia, France, South Africa, Iceland, Mexico, Denmark, Japan, the UK, the USSR, the US, Argentina, Norway, Brazil, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. For this reason, the IWC was often referred to as a "whalers' club". The motives for limiting catches were to adjust whale oil production rather than to conserve resources. If priority had been placed on conserving resources, then a catch limit system such as the notorious Blue Whale Unit would never have been introduced.
Another cause of failure was that biological information on whales was extremely poor even when Antarctic whaling operations were peaking in the 1950s. Catches were allowed to increase rapidly without access to reliable estimates of whale resources. This naturally led to over-exploitation. Such cases are often observed in ordinary fisheries. It is not rare for a stock to be already over-exploited, with catches falling far below the optimum level, before an estimation of the stock size is made. But in the case of whales, this was of particular importance as their populations tend to decrease faster and increase slower than those of fish.
The appropriate method of managing an animal species differs depending on the biological characteristics of the specific resource. Therefore, in order to implement effective management, it is necessary to know the principal parameters of each resource. Generally, whales have the following characteristics: (1) the natural mortality rate is very low and the life span is long. For example, the life a blue whale can span as much as 120 years while a sperm whale may live for 70 years, as long as a human being. For this reason, whales can be easily affected by catches. (2) There are no large-scale stock fluctuations as in the case of fish as the number of whales recruited each year depends on the stock size and is stable. (3) The reproductive rate is very low, and therefore the effects of over-exploitation tend to be felt for a long time.
It goes without saying, therefore, that limitations on the numbers of whales than can be caught are a vital part of managing and utilising whale resources effectively. In order to calculate the number of whales that can be taken, we need an estimate of stock size and of the annual recruitment rate. But in order to calculate stock size, it is necessary to conduct extensive and detailed sighting surveys, and in order to estimate the recruitment rate, it is necessary to analyse a variety of other parameters. A method of management and utilisation applicable to cases where stock size is stabilised, as with whales, is now being developed by Japanese and other IWC scientists. Under this method, whales can be managed and utilised even when there is no information on stock parameters, enabling us to maintain the long-term targeted stock level.
This management method, first proposed by Prof. Syoiti Tanaka of the Tokyo University of Fisheries for fisheries exploitation, can be aptly called an adaptive process. It uses two parameters. One of these is information on stock level, i.e. the relation between the present stock level and the maximum stock level. For this it is not necessary to determine absolute stock size but only relative size. The second parameter is information which enables one to know whether the stock is increasing or decreasing. By combining these two parameters, management and utilisation measures are determined empirically. To perform this task, it is essential to have information on whether the stock is increasing or decreasing, and in order to obtain this information, continuous monitoring is necessary. By applying this method, management and utilisation of whales can be secured on a permanent basis without threatening the species with the risk of extinction.
But even when this adaptive management method is adopted, a stable catch level can be obtained through a simple computer run if the parameters of the stock are known in advance. A survey of minke whales in the Antarctic, now being conducted by Japan, is designed to estimate these parameters, and especially the natural mortality rate by age. This survey has another important objective, namely, to clarify segregation by sex and age of minke whales in the Antarctic. This information is important if the species is to be utilised and managed on a full scale. On the basis of this information, specific methods of utilisation can be determined, such as selection of whaling grounds and allocation of catches for each ground. Anti-whaling organisations are opposed to such surveys, but to oppose them within the framework of the present International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is to challenge the spirit and letter of the Convention.
We are aware that commercial whaling as practiced in the past had various shortcomings. In considering the resumption of commercial whaling, we should take care to address these negative aspects so that we do not repeat the history of over-exploitation. In considering whaling in the years ahead, we need to give consideration to operation methods and allocation of interest.
In the past, large whales were caught selectively in areas of high density to maximise economic efficiency, but a method is now needed by which whales are taken extensively and uniformly both in terms of season and area. In achieving that goal, the sampling method now being employed for minke whales in the Antarctic by Japan will serve as a useful reference. If we do this, then commercial catches will supply much of the same information currently being derived from scientific samples. As continuous monitoring should be integrated in the management and utilisation system, harvesting should be conducted with the minimum possible biases.
With regard to Japanese whaling in the Antarctic, the criticism has been levelled that those whales are the common property of mankind, yet Japan alone wishes to utilise them. The key words in this logic are "common property" and "high seas". Although this is one-sided logic, Japan should consider the possibility of contributing, in some way or other, the rewards of utilising these whale resources to the international community, when commercial whaling reopens. One effective means might be to establish a world cetacean research fund. Such allocation of interest may be necessary.
The slogan proclaimed by anti-whaling groups at the UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 was to "save whales from extinction". The conference adopted a resolution calling for a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling, and passed this recommendation on to the IWC. Ten years later, in 1982, the IWC decided to impose a moratorium, and in 1987 all commercial whaling came to a halt. This means that the anti-whaling organisations achieved their goal.
However, even after commercial whaling was suspended, anti-whaling campaigns continued. These campaigns have persistently opposed the scientific surveys on whale resources being conducted by Japan in the Antarctic. Opposition to commercial whaling and opposition to research should have different implications. What had these opponents of whaling hoped for? And what are they pursuing at present? Looking back at the procedures up to the present time, opposing the extinction of whales seems to be a conventional pretext. However, it also appears that these people have opposed the killing of whales and eating of whale meat by the Japanese, regardless of the abundance of the whales. If this is the case, there are possibilities that opposition movements can be subsequently expanded to fisheries resources other than whales.
At the time of the 1972 Stockholm conference, the IWC did not consider whales to be on the brink of extinction, and did not recognise the need to place a moratorium on commercial whaling. Especially, the IWC Scientific Committee was very cool towards the moratorium proposal. But even then, effective measures were needed to regulate whaling activities in order to conserve whale resources. From around this time, regulations concerning whaling were further tightened and the management system was reinforced. This was a favorable development both for the IWC and for the conservation of whale resources.
If whales were really on the brink of extinction and a campaign were needed to save them, such a campaign would certainly attract public attention. It would be easy to collect funds for campaigns at the grass-roots level. All that campaign managers would need to do would be to stress the danger of extinction to fan up anti-whaling sentiment, without needing to inform the public about what species of whales there are, where they are found, what their position is in the ecosystem, and what kind of management or utilisation systems are being enforced. This exactly how the Save the Whale campaign of the 1970s was conducted, and the tactic was obviously successful. Anti-whaling organisations were able to procure ample funds for their movements, gained access to government organs in many nations, and, above all, succeeded in implanting an impression in the mind of the public that whales were close to extinction.
Meanwhile, however, the IWC had been extending protection to those species which needed it, and the debate began to focus on abundant species, and in particular the Southern Hemisphere minke whale. As a result of a series of sighting surveys conducted annually by the IWC, it came to be recognised that the stock of Southern Hemisphere minke whales, far from being in danger of extinction, was large and robust. At this point the anti-whaling camp adopted a new approach of stressing the uncertainty of our knowledge about minke whales. Existing knowledge of minke whales was insufficient and unreliable, they contended, and therefore commercial catches should be suspended until more reliable information was obtained. This tactic was employed by scientists opposed to whaling, and succeeded in bringing about the 1982 decision to halt all commercial whaling.
When that decision was written into the IWC's Schedule, it was accompanied by a clause stipulating that a "comprehensive assessment" would be made of the effects of the moratorium by 1990 at the latest. In order to carry out this assessment, it was clearly necessary to clarify those areas of our knowledge where there were alleged to be uncertainties. The surveys which Japan has been conducting since 1987 have the express purpose of collecting accurate data and information which can help clear up these uncertainties. This research is also fully in line with IWC regulations, as a provision in the Convention authorises contracting parties to take whales for the purpose of scientific research.
However, the anti-whaling lobby has alleged that the research yields no useful information, and that it is merely a front for a commercial operation. They contend that the research can be conducted through non-lethal methods, such as sighting. This is a totally unreasonable assertion. Judging from the sequence of their assertion, the anti-whaling groups are apparently opposing "the catching of whales by the Japanese". They put up various slogans to fit various occasions, such as "extinction", "absence of science", and "uncertainty of knowledge". But what they are really pursuing is something quite different. Here the objectives spelled out in the preamble to the Convention have lost their significance.
Such campaigns to halt all whaling, whether for commercial or research purposes, have been waged by powerful environmental groups which attend IWC meetings as non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The activities of the IWC have come to be dominated from behind the scenes by NGOs, and it was the NGOs who, in 1982, were largely responsible for securing the three-quarters majority necessary to railroad the moratorium proposal through the IWC. This they achieved by recruiting new members - nations with no active interest in whale research or management - specifically for the purpose of voting for the moratorium. This situation can be likened to the hijacking of a plane; an international organisation had been hijacked by followers of a specific ideology. Looking at the lamentable state of affairs in the IWC over the last 10 years, one cannot help but think that similar things might happen in other international organisations.
A hijacked plane does not head for its original destination but takes the course designated by the hijackers. The IWC is obviously moving in a direction which takes it away from the course prescribed by the Convention, which has as its objectives the conservation and rational utilisation of whale resources, and the orderly development of the whaling industry.
Japan, on the other hand, bases its position upon, and acts in accordance with, the Convention, and the fundamental guideline for Japan in coping with the whaling controversy is the Convention itself. Various groups with contradicting principles determining their activities cannot coexist within the IWC. If the anti-whaling group tries to eliminate whaling from the world, then they must start by abolishing the Convention.
IV. Utilisation of whales
This chapter merely express my personal view and in no way should be interpreted as representing the stance of the Institute of Cetacean Research. It would give me immense pleasure if my view could motivate people of different standpoints to discuss the issue of utilisation of whales in the future.
In the preceding chapter I said that "Japan ... bases its position upon, and acts in accordance with, the Convention", and that "the fundamental guideline for Japan in coping with the whaling controversy is the Convention itself". The objectives of the Convention, as stated in its preamble, are the "conservation and rational utilisation of whale resources", and any use of the IWC to pursue a conflicting agenda would be a violation of the Convention. For example, if the IWC voted to prohibit indefinitely the taking of whales, it would be hard to understand for what purpose the Convention exists, and even harder to justify the continued existence of the IWC. There would be no meaning for contracting parties to remain as members, the IWC would collapse, and the Convention's provisions would become null and void.
In the following, I will attempt to draw a future scenario for the utilisation of whales within the framework of the Convention, on the assumption that the letter and spirit of the Convention are respected.
The Convention was drawn up in 1946, a year after the end of World War II, which means it has been with us for nearly 50 years. During this time, drastic changes have taken place in fisheries and in the management of marine resources, on a global scale. As the 200-mile-zone system took root, many nations introduced exclusive economic zones and established systems for the utilisation and management of marine life in their waters. In pace with this change, the picture of the world's fisheries changed dramatically. Whaling has also seen radical changes from its zenith during the middle of this century to the nadir we have today, the moratorium.
The whaling controversy has been played out against the backdrop of the present Convention, and no situation has occurred that has prompted fundamental changes to be made to the Convention. No strong opposition has been expressed to the objectives and overall structure of the Convention, and there has thus been no reason to change it. However, there do exist some problems which require adjustment between the 200-mile-zone system and the Convention.
As a result of the establishment of 200-mile zones, the utilisation and management of biological resources within these zones came to be placed under the control of individual coastal states. This means that, as far as fisheries are concerned, territorial waters were expanded virtually to the 200-mile limit even though there are guidelines concerning utilisation of living resources (i.e. Art. 62 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea: Utilisation of Living Resources).
But the Law of the Sea Convention provides for effort for conservation, management and studies of cetaceans through appropriate international organisations (Art. 65 Marine Mammals). Under the present situation, the "appropriate international organisation" is undoubtedly the IWC, and the task of managing cetaceans should be implemented through the IWC. On the other hand, the IWC's Convention provides in Art. I (2) that "this Convention applies to factory ships, land stations, and whale catchers under the jurisdiction of the Contracting Governments and to all waters in which whaling is prosecuted by such factory ships, land stations, and whale catchers". This means that the IWC's Convention applies equally to territorial waters. But at the same time this does not seem to mean that whales are excluded from 200-mile-zone jurisdiction. Rather it is considered that the IWC should incorporate the objectives of the 200-mile zone into its whale management system. It is not impossible to take such measures within the framework of the present Convention.
If the objectives of 200-mile zones are to be incorporated, whaling should be divided into two categories according to area, namely the high seas and other areas. In the case of whaling, "high seas" would refer for the present exclusively to the Antarctic. Whales are also found in other parts of the high seas, but these do not need to be considered here as there are no whaling activities in these areas. Utilisation and management of whales on the high seas and in 200-mile zones should not be dealt with uniformly.
- The Case of the Antarctic -
No one nation governs the Antarctic Ocean, and in every sense it belongs to the category "high seas". It is also the feeding ground of large numbers of whales of various species. Therefore, the regulation of whaling and the management and conservation of whales in this area naturally come under the jurisdiction of the IWC.
But there is also another multilateral convention which gives international guidelines for the conservation and utilisation of whales in the Antarctic: the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). The preamble to this convention adopts the concept of "ecosystem", recognising "the importance of safeguarding the environment and protecting the integrity of the ecosystem of the sea surrounding Antarctica." Article II (1) states that "the objective of this Convention is the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources," and II (2) clarifies this by stating that "for the purposes of this Convention, the term 'conservation' includes rational use." CCAMLR defines "Antarctic marine living resources" as "the population of fin fish, mollusks, crustaceans and all other species of living organisms, including birds, found south of the Antarctic Convergence." As functions of the CCAMLR commission, the Convention cites, among others, "the designation of the quantity of any species which may be harvested in the area to which this Convention applies," "the designation of protected species," and "the designation of the size, age and, as appropriate, sex of species which may be harvested." In short, CCAMLR designates the quantity of resources, by species, which may be harvested in the Antarctic. Cetaceans and seals are naturally included in these resources.
However, such activities of CCAMLR duplicate those of the IWC and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. For this purpose, it is stated that "nothing in this Convention shall derogate from the rights and obligations of Contracting Parties under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctica Seals" (Article VI). This means that CCAMLR respects the other two conventions and should be adjusted with those conventions. However, although this ambiguous passage leaves great scope for interpretation, it does not mean the whales and seals migrating to, and living in, the Antarctic are excluded from the objectives of CCAMLR. If they are excluded, then the original spirit of CCAMLR will be denied and its raison d'etre becomes questionable. It would make no sense to discuss the Antarctic ecosystem without reference to these two animal groups, as the relations between krill and baleen whales, and between krill and seals, are the most fundamental in the structure of the ecosystem.
However, any attempt to utilise and manage whales in the Antarctic solely through the IWC could run counter to the direction in which CCAMLR is moving. The two organisations should promote their respective activities through coordinated efforts. For example, if the IWC makes "protection for the sake of protection" its criterion of activities, it would come into conflict with the policy concerning Antarctic living resources of CCAMLR which aims at management of resources, including utilisation. If the IWC persists in such measures, it would certainly become an outmoded organisation.
Now let us consider how whales should be used. As whales are common property (res communis), nations which do not utilise them may be inclined to protest at their utilisation by other nations. This sense of resentment has undoubtedly existed behind the whaling controversy in recent years. Few countries have knowledge and expertise concerning Antarctic whales and whaling technology, while Japan is better positioned than any other country to utilise Antarctic whales. However, it is not desirable that only Japan profits from whaling. Japan should find some way of passing the profit on to the international community. One possibility might be to establish a global fund for marine mammal research for use by researchers of all nations.
Yet here arises a problem. Can a business enterprise engage in a whaling operation which does not generate a profit? Actually, it would be difficult anyway for private enterprises to engage profitably in Antarctic whaling as they did in the past. Instead, the main promoter of whaling should be a public organisation under government control which could make open the accounting procedure and use the profit for the public good. What legal characteristics such an organisation should assume is a matter of debate in Japan, but private enterprises would not be appropriate as promoters of whaling as special consideration would have to be given to the method of operation, allocation of profit and research activities.
Operation methods would be related to management methods, but under any circumstances catch quotas should be allocated to each area of the Antarctic, and those quotas should preferably be taken uniformly both in terms of area and period. As whales, especially in the Antarctic, are known to segregate according to sex and age, undue pressures may be exerted on stocks if catches were to be concentrated in specific periods and areas. A uniform catching method would produce the same effects as the random sampling method now being used by the Institute of Cetacean Research in its surveys of Antarctic minke whales. However, the sample collecting methods used in this research could not possibly be applied in their entirety in a commercial operation. It would be necessary to formulate an operation plan that would ensure catches were taken randomly with regard to sex and age, based on our knowledge of segregation status obtained in past years. Needless to say, research activities using random sampling, as is now being applied, should continue to be implemented in parallel with this type of catching method, and quantitative and qualitative changes of stocks should be monitored constantly through this research.
- The Case of Coastal Whaling -
As I have already pointed out, coastal whaling cannot be treated separately from the management of fishery resources within 200-mile zones because coastal whaling is incorporated in the 200-mile-zone system in one or more coastal states. On the other hand, a coastal state should not take unilateral steps to decide or implement measures to use and manage whales without heeding the present cetacean management system of the IWC. The question of how to achieve harmony between management by coastal states and management by the IWC has not been fully discussed nor has the question been raised in clear terms. However, the issue has often been raised in passing in the course of discussions on whether the species subject to IWC management should be expanded to include small cetaceans, such as dolphins, and in these debates many countries have expressed concern that this would prejudice their right to manage resources within their 200-mile zones.
Should the IWC decide unilaterally to expand its regulatory powers, it could happen that its new powers would conflict with the jurisdiction and regulatory measures of specific coastal states. The IWC has so far established quotas (including zero quotas), and regulated whaling grounds, hunting seasons and methods that can be used, and it will be necessary for the IWC to continue regulating these aspects in the future. However, problems may arise if the IWC attempts to make highly political decisions and apply them extensively. An example of such a decision was the establishment by the IWC in 1982 of a whale sanctuary in the Indian Ocean. The jurisdiction for establishing the sanctuary was that it would enable studies to be made of the growth and distribution of whale stocks in that area in comparison with other areas. In other words, it was being established as a survey ground. However, no substantial reports have been published documenting research or studies of this kind within the sanctuary. And those research programs on marine mammals which have been conducted in some parts of the Indian Ocean have not been part of a coordinated effort, and seem unrelated to whether the area has sanctuary status or not. IWC regulations and measures are binding upon Contracting Parties but in no way extend to non-member nations. Under these circumstances, it was obviously superfluous to designate, solely within the IWC's jurisdiction, such a vast expanse of ocean as a sanctuary. I mentioned in the previous chapter that the IWC has been "hijacked", and the case of the Indian Ocean sanctuary is a clear example of how this organisation has been conducting itself since its hijacking.
Another point to consider about coastal whaling is the position of whales in the ecosystem. A coastal state should have a comprehensive concept and measures for utilising the ecosystem in its own 200-mile zone. Some coastal states do not take whales at all and may wish to maintain their populations at the highest possible level. This course of action could be expected from those nations which are opposed to all whaling, and if a nation makes this choice, no other nation has the right to complain. Other nations may wish to keep stocks at the level at which they give the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and utilise that yield. This is another choice. And there are numerous other alternatives which fall between the two. Each coastal state, not the IWC, should be responsible for making such a decision, and all the IWC has to do is to establish measures to prevent whale resources from declining to undesirable levels (e.g. to below the MSY level). Decisions made by coastal states, meanwhile, should not impair the effectiveness of IWC management measures.
Under these circumstances, therefore, it would be the coastal states that would decide whether to conduct whaling in their waters, and what type of whaling to conduct. Whaling operations would differ from one state to the next depending on the circumstances and conditions, and it would thus be impossible to establish a uniform operation method. Some states might wish to go whaling on a small scale and only in restricted areas. Others might wish to deploy large whaling vessels over extensive areas. Consequently it would be unrealistic to expect all catches to be conducted according to the random-sampling method recommended for Antarctic whaling. But no matter what type of operation a states chooses to conduct, it would be essential to monitor stocks in order to know the changes taking place in the stocks. For this purpose, survey areas would need to cover the entire range of the stocks, as it is not possible to monitor the health of a stock from surveys conducted only in the limited areas where catching takes place.
In the case of coastal whaling, targeted species are not common property as in the case of the Antarctic. Private profit-making enterprises can be operators and should not be required to donate part of their profits to the international community. Rather, adjustment with other types of fishery in the domestic arena will be an important task.
Lately, whale watching has been attracting public attention in some parts of Japan, and there are signs that a whale-watching industry is becoming established. It is fascinating to observe at close quarters the movements of large whales, and whale watching certainly qualifies as a potential area for the utilisation of whales. But to say that all the world's whales should be made objects of watching is both selfish and unrealistic. It is possible to designate certain species and stocks as being suitable for whale watching, and prohibit the taking of these whales, but it is for the people of a given region to decide on how they wish to utilise whales, and the IWC has no right to try to influence their decision. In point of fact, gray whales migrating along the length of the eastern Pacific are the objects of whale watching off the coast of California, while about 160 whales are caught annually by Russian whalers in the Arctic. This is a case in which non-consumptive and consumptive uses are being applied to the same stock.
_
